Williams Gas Processing — Gulf Coast v. F.E.R.C., 03-1179.

Decision Date13 July 2004
Docket NumberNo. 03-1201.,No. 03-1179.,No. 03-1199.,03-1179.,03-1199.,03-1201.
Citation373 F.3d 1335
PartiesWILLIAMS GAS PROCESSING — GULF COAST COMPANY, L.P., et al., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent. Shell Offshore Inc., et al., Intervenors.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

James T. McManus argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Craig R. Rich, Mari M. Ramsey, David A. Glenn, and Gregory Grady.

David H. Coffman, Attorney, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Cynthia A. Marlette, General Counsel, and Dennis Lane, Solicitor.

Thomas J. Eastment argued the cause for producer intervenors. With him on the brief were Charles J. McClees, Jr., James M. Costan, T. Alana Deere, Douglas W. Rasch, and Stephen L. Teichler.

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and SENTELLE and ROBERTS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROBERTS.

ROBERTS, Circuit Judge:


The Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 717-717w, grants FERC jurisdiction over rates charged by any "natural-gas company for or in connection with the transportation or sale of natural gas." Id. § 717c(a). A "natural-gas company," in turn, includes any firm "engaged in the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce." Id. § 717a (6). The "gathering" of gas — "generally defined as the process of taking natural gas from the wells and moving it to a collection point for further movement through a pipeline's principal transmission system," Williams Gas Processing — Gulf Coast Co., L.P. v. FERC, 331 F.3d 1011, 1013 (D.C.Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted) — is explicitly excluded, however, from FERC's jurisdiction. See 15 U.S.C. § 717(b) ("this chapter ... shall not apply to ... the production or gathering of natural gas"). Notwithstanding that jurisdictional limitation, FERC historically exercised jurisdiction over gathering services provided directly by interstate pipelines on the theory that such gathering services are provided "in connection with" the interstate transportation of gas. See, e.g., Northern Natural Gas Co., 43 FERC ¶ 61,473, 1988 WL 244822 (1988), reh'g denied, 44 FERC ¶ 61,384, 1988 WL 245740 (1988) (citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 717c, 717d); see also Conoco Inc. v. FERC, 90 F.3d 536, 540 (D.C.Cir.1996). FERC, however, has never claimed jurisdiction over stand-alone gathering entities, i.e., gathering facilities that are neither owned by nor affiliated with a pipeline within FERC's jurisdiction.

In response to this regulatory environment, several jurisdictional pipelines that provided gathering services sought either to "spin off" their gathering facilities as unrelated corporations or to "spin down" the gathering operations to corporate affiliates by transferring ownership of the gathering facilities from the pipeline to a subsidiary. While a gathering service spun off from a jurisdictional pipeline into a separate corporation was clearly beyond FERC's NGA jurisdiction, the jurisdictional status of gatherers spun down from an interstate pipeline was less clear. FERC had claimed that it retained "in connection with" jurisdiction over the rates charged by spun-down gatherers. See Natural Gas Gathering Services Performed by Interstate Pipelines and Interstate Pipeline Affiliates — Issues Related to Rates and Terms and Conditions of Service, 65 FERC ¶ 61,136, 61,689-90, 1993 WL 534500 (1993) (citing Northwest Pipeline Corp., 59 FERC ¶ 61,115, 61,436-37, 1992 WL 119293 (1992)). But FERC never found occasion to exercise its authority over such an entity. In fact, when the gathering affiliate in Northwest Pipeline challenged FERC's statutory authority for such jurisdiction in the court of appeals, "[t]he Commission represented... that its orders neither assert[ed] jurisdiction nor impl[ied] that it ha[d] jurisdiction over [the gathering affiliate] at the present time." Williams Gas Processing Co. v. FERC, 17 F.3d 1320, 1322 (10th Cir.1994). The Tenth Circuit therefore dismissed the petition for review for lack of a case or controversy. See id.

The Commission sought to resolve the jurisdictional status of spun-down gathering entities in Arkla Gathering Services Company, 67 FERC ¶ 61,257, 1994 WL 237088 (1994). FERC there reviewed a jurisdictional pipeline's proposal to spin down its gathering facilities to an affiliate and various objections to that application. The Commission concluded that, as a general matter, it lacked jurisdiction over "companies that perform only a gathering function"; "whether they are independent or affiliated with an interstate pipeline," such gathering entities "are not natural gas companies" under the NGA. Id. at 61,871. The Commission, though, found it hard to let go: FERC still maintained that it could, "in particular circumstances," reassert jurisdiction over a jurisdictional pipeline's gathering affiliate "where such action is necessary to accomplish the Commission's policies for the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce." Id. The Commission warned that "if an affiliated gatherer acts in concert with its pipeline affiliate... and in a manner that frustrates the Commission's effective regulation of the interstate pipeline," the Commission would set aside "the separate corporate structures and treat the pipeline ... as it would if the gathering facilities were owned directly by an interstate pipeline." Id.

The Commission went on to explain, however, that only certain "types of affiliate abuses" — those "arising specifically from the interrelationship between the pipeline and its affiliate" — would "trigger the Commission's authority to disregard the corporate form" and permit it to assert jurisdiction over a spun-down gathering affiliate. Id. Such abuses included "the affiliate's giving preferences to market affiliate gas or tying gathering service to the pipeline's jurisdictional transmission service; the pipeline's giving transportation discounts only to those utilizing the affiliate's gathering service; and actions resulting in cross-subsidization between the affiliate's gathering rates and the pipeline's transmission rates." Id. While the Commission acknowledged that "an affiliate could undertake other types of anti-competitive activities," the Commission viewed its residual jurisdiction as reaching only scenarios "where the abuse is directly related to the affiliate's unique relationship with an interstate pipeline." Id. Only that brand of anti-competitive behavior breached "the arm's length relationship between the pipeline and an affiliated gathering company" and thereby authorized the Commission to treat a jurisdictional pipeline and its gathering affiliate "together as a single `natural gas company'" subject to FERC jurisdiction. Id.

We affirmed FERC's approval of the spin-down of the Arkla gathering facilities. See Conoco, 90 F.3d at 544-50. Specifically, we rejected the objections of various gas producers to the Commission's determination that it generally lacked NGA jurisdiction over gathering affiliates. Id. at 544-49. We also approved — "[a]s an abstract matter" — the Commission's new policy concerning NGA gathering affiliates, stating "we have no reason to doubt the Commission's conclusion that a nonjurisdictional entity could act in a manner that would change its status by enabling an affiliated interstate pipeline to manipulate access and costs of gathering." Id. at 549. We explicitly acknowledged, however, that the question had not yet been squarely presented for resolution "because the Commission has yet to assert its jurisdiction over a gathering affiliate." Id. That time has now come.


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) is a FERC-regulated natural gas transportation company that operates approximately 10,500 miles of natural gas pipeline extending from the Gulf of Mexico to New York. In November 2000, Transco sought permission from FERC to spin down its gathering facilities in the Gulf of Mexico located offshore of North Padre Island, Texas to its gathering affiliate Williams Gas Processing — Gulf Coast Company, L.P. (WGP).1 The North Padre Island (NPI) gathering facilities consist of two small offshore legs — 3.83 miles of 10-inch pipeline and 18.79 miles of 20-inch pipeline — both of which gather and move gas before converging offshore and connecting to Transco's separate 24-inch pipeline that provides IT-feeder service2 to an onshore processing facility and eventually to Transco's main pipeline in Texas.

FERC approved the spin-down of the NPI gathering facilities to WGP over the objections of numerous producers and shippers, including Shell Offshore Inc., an intervenor in this proceeding. See Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 96 FERC ¶ 61,115, 61,433, 61,442, 2001 WL 840622 (2001) (Spin-Down Order), aff'd, Williams Gas ProcessingGulf Coast Co., 331 F.3d at 1020-23. Moreover, as WGP engaged only in gathering and other nonjurisdictional activities, the Commission concluded that once ownership of the NPI facilities was transferred from Transco to WGP, those facilities would become exempt from FERC's NGA jurisdiction. Spin-Down Order, 96 FERC at 61,442. The Commission, however, noted on several occasions that, as the NPI gathering facilities were located offshore, they would remain subject to FERC's jurisdiction under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1331-1356, and OCSLA's requirement that service be provided on an open access and nondiscriminatory basis, id. § 1334(f)(1)(A). Spin-Down Order, 96 FERC at 61,435-37. Transco closed the spin-down of the NPI gathering facilities to WGP on December 1, 2001, and those facilities are now operated by Williams Field Services (WFS), a wholly-owned subsidiary of WGP.

Intervenor Shell Offshore Inc. (Shell) produced gas offshore of North...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Van Hollen v. Fed. Election Comm'n
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 30, 2012
    ...rely on that proposition when it promulgated the regulation. Pl.'s Opp. at 1–2, citing Williams Gas Processing—Gulf Coast Co., L.P. v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1335, 1345 (D.C.Cir.2004) (“It is axiomatic that [a court] may uphold agency orders based only on reasoning that is fairly stated by the agen......
  • Lewis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • June 11, 2018
    ...at issue] because it failed to explain its departure from the agency's own precedents."); see also Williams Gas Processing–Gulf Coast Co. v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1335, 1341 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("[W]e will not countenance an agency's departure from its precedent without explanation ....").9 The Court......
  • Matson Navigation Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • June 12, 2020
    ...Casino Airlines, Inc. v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd. , 439 F.3d 715, 717 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Williams Gas Processing-Gulf Coast Co., L.P. v. FERC , 373 F.3d 1335, 1345 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ), and courts will uphold an agency's decision "[a]s long as ‘the agency's path may reasonably be disce......
  • Vidal v. Nielsen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • February 13, 2018
    ...rationalizations of agency action." State Farm, 463 U.S. at 50, 103 S.Ct. 2856 ; see also Williams Gas Processing—Gulf Coast Co., L.P. v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1335, 1345 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Roberts, J.) ("It is axiomatic that [the court] may uphold agency orders based only on reasoning that is fair......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • The Path of Constitutional Law Suplemmentary Materials
    • January 1, 2007
    ...Williams v. Vermont, 472 U.S. 14, 105 S.Ct. 2645, 86 L.Ed.2d 11 (1985), 1186, 1201 Williams Gas Processing -Gulf Coast Co., L.P. v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 2004), Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, 348 U.S. 483, 75 S.Ct. 461, 99 L.Ed. 563 (1955), 1102, 1184, 1191, 1222, 1488 Will......
  • Regulated Industries
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2022
    ...or abandonment of facilities). The jurisdiction of FERC is not without limits. In Williams Gas Processing-Gulf Coast Co. v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the court held that the agency exceeded its NGA jurisdiction when it disregarded the corporate form and treated a pipeline and it......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Law Developments (Ninth Edition) - Volume II
    • February 2, 2022
    ...v. Garrity, 479 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2007), aff ’ d, 629 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 2011), 886 Williams Gas Processing-Gulf Coast Co. v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 2004), 1515 Williamson Oil Co. v. Philip Morris USA, 346 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2003), 5, 9, 10, 12, 17, 1001, 1004 Williamson v. Citri......
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Oil and Gas Agreements - The Production and Marketing Phase (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...Co. v. FERC, 297 F.3d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 2002) [4] .See FERC Docket RP02-99, and Williams Gas Processing - Gulf Coast Co., L.P. v. FERC, 373 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 2004), where FERC's attempt to regulate gathering services provided "in connection with" interstate transportation was remanded. Whi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT